japán gyerekek családrajzai És kötődése

8/12/2019 Japn Gyerekek Csaldrajzai s Ktdse

1/15

Japanese childrens family drawings and their link to attachment

Kazuko Y. Behrensa* and Nancy Kaplanb

aDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, Texas Tech University,Lubbock, TX, USA; bDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

(Received 6 February 2009; final version received 26 February 2011)

This study explored the applicability of family drawings as a tool to estimateattachment security in a sample of Japanese six-year-olds (N 47), applyingKaplan and Mains (1986) Family Drawing system. Maternal secure/insecure

attachment status judged by the Adult Attachment Interview predicted familydrawings secure/insecure distinction produced by Japanese six-year-olds.However, insecure Japanese drawings took forms not seen in the originalBerkeley drawings, such as a lineup of faces alone. Further examination of theJapanese childrens drawings using global rating scales (Fury, Carlson, & Sroufe,1997) yielded significant gender differences, rarely reported in the attachmentliterature, with girls scoring higher in scales that predict attachment security andboys scoring higher in scales that predict attachment insecurity. However,attachment security, as captured in the drawings, was not related to attachmentsecurity, observed behaviorally using Main and Cassidys (1988) sixth-yearreunion system. Implications of the findings are discussed in light of measure-ments, gender, and culture.

Keywords:cross-cultural attachment; Japan; Adult Attachment Interview; FamilyDrawing

Introduction

Cross-cultural validation of behavioral measures of attachment has been accom-

plished through a number of studies based on the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP;

Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; see van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz,

2008, for a comprehensive review of these studies), the Attachment Q-Sort (AQS;

Waters & Deane, 1985; e.g., Kazui, Endo, Tanaka, & Sakagami, 2000), and the

Main-Cassidy (1988) sixth-year reunion system (Behrens, Hesse, & Main, 2007). A

wide usage of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI: protocol, George, Kaplan, &

Main, 1996; classification system, Main, Goldwyn, & Hesse, 2002) as a representa-

tional measure has been documented in a recent meta-analysis of studies that used

the AAI, exceeding 10,000 AAIs in total, combining various clinical and non-clinical,

world-wide samples (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009). However, it

may be more difficult to cross-culturally validate childrens non-behavioral or

representational measures of attachment that typically involve children beyond

infancy. One reason is that the attachment behavioral system is not as easily

activated in middle childhood as in infancy, because of the older childs growing

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Attachment & Human Development

Vol. 13, No. 5, September 2011, 437450


2/15

ability to represent their caregivers in their mind, even though their linguistic abilities

and overall representational capacities remain relatively limited (Solomon & George,

1999). In addition, assessing childrens attachment representations in one culture by

relying on a measure developed in another may pose special challenges because it

may require translations of subtle behaviors or narratives to capture accurately the

nuances which play an important role in determining the quality of attachment

relationships. The examination of childrens family drawings may provide a means

of understanding how children in a particular culture perceive and represent their

families without the need for linguistic interpretation. Is it possible to estimate,

across cultures, the quality of attachment relationship by examining how children

draw their attachment figures? The present study sought to evaluate the applicability

of the family drawing measure to estimate attachment security/insecurity of Japanese

children, a sample that has not been targeted before.

Historically, childrens drawings have long been of interest, not only to artists

who appreciate their genuinely creative and artistic expression, but also to educators

and researchers. These educators and researchers use them as a tool to assessintelligence (Goodenough, 1926; Goodnow, 1977; Scott, 1981), or to better

understand general cognitive development (e.g., Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Lowenfeld

and Brittain (1987) discussed drawings in terms of general developmental stages, and

recognized common characteristics based on motor or perceptional skills and

cognitive abilities. Variation observed in the drawings produced by young children is

generally understood to reflect variation in their level of intellectual or perceptual

growth, as well as differences in their actual experiences (Lowenfeld & Brittain,

1987). Clinicians also use childrens drawings, primarily as a projective assessment

tool which provides a window into the childs inner world and feelings that the child

cannot readily express verbally (Burns & Kaufman, 1970; Hammer, 1981; Koppitz,1968). Therapists have also used childrens drawings to assess the effectiveness of

therapeutic interventions (e.g., in grieving children; Glazer, 1998).

In describing changes in attachment behavior with age, Bowlby (1969/1982)

discussed the ability of attachment figures represented symbolically (such as in

photographs or letters) to effectively activate or terminate attachment behavior. The

internal working model (IWM) construct proposed by Bowlby (1973) may therefore

be captured in drawings by children that include both the child and his or her

caregivers and the portrayal of their relational legacy in his or her mind. Thus, the

act of drawing families, as opposed to objects or other specific themes, may

sufficiently activate the attachment system because it provides children a choice of

who to draw (e.g., I want to draw mommy next to me, but not daddy) and how

(e.g. I am going to draw everyone with a BIG smile like one happy family!). The

choice then is likely to reflect their IWM above and beyond drawing skills.

Kaplan and Main (1986) originally proposed the idea that children might evince

meaningful differences in their attachment representations as depicted in their family

drawings. Corresponding to infant attachment classifications secure, avoidant,

ambivalent (Ainsworth et al., 1978), and disorganized (Main & Solomon, 1986), they

were able to identify specific drawing patterns that differentiated each attachment

pattern. Their work resulted in the development of a classification system that

distinguished various patterns of attachment at the representational level.

Fury, Carlson, and Sroufe (1997) reported family drawing data of eightnine-year-olds from a high risk sample. This study is the first published replication of

l d i d ( ) d i h d hi hl i ifi li k b

438 K.Y. Behrens and N. Kaplan


3/15

drawing classifications and the SSP classifications (kappa .52, p 5 .001),

controlling for intelligence, life stress, and emotional functioning. Pianta, Longmaid,

and Ferguson (1999) assessed kindergarteners family drawings by first examining

the presence or absence of discrete features listed by Kaplan and Main, and found

that teacher ratings of social and behavioral competence were meaningfully related

to the childrens drawing classifications, controlling for intelligence, fine motor skills,

age, sex, race, or SES.

Fury et al. (1997) additionally developed a series of global rating scales to explore

links among various attachment constructs and psychometrics. The seven point

rating scales consist ofVitality, Family pride, Vulnerability, Role-reversal, Emotional

distance, Tension/anger, and Global pathology. All of the scales were significantly

related to the childrens attachment history in the expected directions and have

inspired investigators to explore various research questions in diverse samples. For

example, Madigan, Ladd, and Goldberg (2003) applied Fury et al.s scales to

examine family drawings produced by chronically ill children. Madigan et al.

reported that attachment security estimated from the global ratings of seven-year-olds family drawings matched their earlier SSP attachment classifications. Clarke

and colleagues (Clarke, Ungerer, Chahoud, Johnson, & Stiefel, 2002) reported that

family drawings produced by boys diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD) scored significantly higher than control groups in Vulnerability,

Role-reversal, Tension/anger, and Global pathology scales that represented family

disharmony with anger or confusion. Leon and Rudy (2005) reported that childrens

drawings were rated higher in Vulnerability and Role-reversal scales the more their

mothers reported marital/family problems. Fihrer and McMahon (2009) found that

the more episodes of maternal depression children were exposed to, the higher on the

Global pathology scale their drawings scored. Fihrer and McMahon did find a linkbetween attachment quality represented on the family drawings and the AAI

although no match was found to the SSP data.

The present study explores whether we can replicate previous findings in several

Western samples which showed links between family drawings and attachment

security in a sample of Japanese six-year-olds. Specifically, we examine for the first

time whether family drawings that are collected in Japan, following the original 1985

Berkeley study procedure (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), can yield findings

similar to what were reported in the US 25 years ago. We use the Kaplan-Main

(1986) system and additionally Fury et al.s (1997) global rating scales to assess the 6-

year-olds drawings, which are examined against their reunion behaviors, and their

mothers AAI status. We hypothesize that (1) Japanese childrens attachment

security/insecurity distinction can be identified in family drawings, and such a

distinction can be predicted from (2) the concurrent behavioral measure and (3) the

maternal AAI, and finally (4) global rating scales will yield meaningful differences

between secure and insecure groups, examining Japanese childrens family drawings,

their reunion data, and their mothers AAI.

Method

Participants

The sample included 47 Japanese motherchild dyads from Sapporo, Japan, afterremoving two dyads due to one childs developmental delay and another childs

f l d h l i l d d fi b hild d b (

Attachment & Human Development 439


4/15

months, Range 6179, SD 4.5). Mothers were all married and none worked full

time (M 35.5 years, Range 2946;SD 4.0). Thirty-five percent were high school

graduates, 12% had completed vocational training after high school, 37% had

completed junior college, and 12% had completed a four-year college. The sample

was considered middle class.

Procedures

Motherchild dyads visited a university laboratory converted to a playroom. As

soon as the child seemed comfortable with the surrounding as judged by the mother,

she left the room for the AAI. The examiner then suggested the child draw,

informally requesting the child to draw something for her as a pleasant pastime

rather than an assignment or test. The examiner set a large drawing pad (50 cm x 65

cm) on a table slightly larger than the drawing paper with a box of colored crayons.

Following the warm-up drawing, the examiner asked the child to draw his or her

family. The examiner afterwards asked the child and noted each figures relation tothe child on the back of the paper. Once the child completed the drawing, the

examiner presented other tasks before age-appropriate attractive toys were brought

in for the child to engage in free play until the mothers return (see Behrens et al.,

2007, for general setup and procedures for the AAI and Main and Cassidy sixth-year

reunion).

Measures

The family drawings were classified according to the Kaplan-Main (1986) system.

Table 1 provides a summary description of the classification criteria. Familydrawings are judged as secure or insecure (avoidant, ambivalent, or disorganized)1,

when many of the descriptors under each category are present, while not deviating

from the overall characteristic of each category. Although Japanese childrens

drawings judged secure (Figure 2) were similar to those drawn by US children in

terms of space between figures and their stance with open arms (Figure 3), some of

the Japanese childrens drawings judged insecurewere different from what had been

seen in the Berkeley sample, including drawings that displayed a lineup of faces alone

(Figure 4).

Drawings were scored by the first author who was trained in Kaplan and Mains

(1986) system and achieved a sufficient level of reliability with Kaplan on a set of 30

slides of childrens family drawings and additional 34 Japanese childrens family

drawings (over 80% agreement). For the current data, Kaplan coded 10 (21%) of the

drawings of the total 47 (kappa .80 for the two-way). For cases of disagreement,

Kaplans codes were used. Because of the randomized and re-assigned subject

number for each drawing, the first author was blind to the AAI classification as well

as the Main-Cassidy sixth-year reunion classification as was Kaplan.

Each drawing was additionally rated, applying Fury et al.s eight global rating

scales on a seven point scale: (1) Vitality/Creativitywas judged based on creativity or

extra work in detailing and care a child invested in completing a picture; (2) Family

pride/Happinesswas judged based on childs sense of cohesiveness or belongingness

to the family; (3) Vulnerability was judged based on unusual sizes or exaggeratedbody parts; (4) Emotional distance/Isolation was judged based on childs disguised

i f i ff di f h i l di hild l



5/15

Table 1. Kaplan-Main (1986) Family Drawing classification groups.

Group Characteristics summary

Secure Overall, the family tends to be represented in a welcoming stance. Descriptors:(1) Figures are grounded or centered; (2) A natural proximity among family

members (i.e., often open-armed, embracing stance); (3) Often, not allfamily members are smiling; (4) Figures are individuated; (5) Figures suggestmovement; (6) Real-world elements may be present (i.e., bicycles, ahouse, a pet); (7) Figures are complete; (8) Some are notably imaginative(fantasy elements).

InsecureAvoidant Overall, the drawings appear to present an invulnerable and happy family.

Descriptors include, for example, arms being absent, lack of individuation(such as smiley sticker smiles), or lack of movement.

Ambivalent Overall, the drawings present an impression of vulnerability or beingoverwhelmed. Descriptors include, for example, unusually large or smallfigures, family figures placed very closely together.

Disorganized Overall, the drawings often contain ominous, directly disorganized, or over-bright elements. In some cases unfinished figures (missing body parts) areportrayed.



6/15

Figure 2. Sapporo six-year-olds family drawing judged secure.



7/15

picture; (5) Tension/anger was judged based on figures that appear to be tense or

closed, including overall carelessness, crossed out figures, or scribbles; (6) Role-reversalwas judged based on size or roles of figures identified in the drawing; (7)

Bizarreness/Dissociationwas judged based on elements of unusual marks or symbols;

(8)Global pathologywas judged based on overall degree of negativity in terms of the

organization, completeness of figures, colors, detail-ness, affect, and background

scenes.

This part of coding was done by research assistants who were blind to all

information relating to all cases. A primary coder coded 47 drawings and a second

coder independently coded 24 (50%) drawings based on Fury et al.s (1997) global

scale criteria. Among the eight global scales, two scales (Emotional distance/Isolation

and Role-reversal) did not reach significance and two scales (Vulnerability and

Tension/anger) reached significance but at low rates of .47 and .60 between two

coders and thus were eliminated from the analyses. Inter-coder agreement for the

remaining four scales, using Pearson correlations, ranged from .68 to .85 (M .75).

As a concurrent behavioral measure, the reunion data (N 42) assessed, based

on Main and Cassidys (1988) system, were examined against the drawing data. Six-

year-olds were classified as secure with the mother when they showed no changes in

affect or behavior upon reunion, engaged in relaxed, fluid conversation, and

sometimes increased proximity in a subtle manner. Children were classified as

insecure when, for example, they stiffened upon reunion, subtly attempted to avoid

the mother, when they showed immature or some angry behavior toward the mother,

or when children showed controlling or globally anomalous behaviors. All reunionswere coded by the experts of this system (M. Main & E. Hesse), reaching 100%

f i li bili f j l ifi i

Figure 4. Sapporo six-year-olds family drawing judged avoidant.



8/15

The AAI is a semi-structured, one hour interview, having adults discuss their

childhood experiences with their attachment figures (usually the parents). The AAI

with a translated (and back-translated) protocol was administered to Japanese

mothers, following the standard AAI procedure (George et al., 1996). Transcripts

were then examined in Japanese and coded, according to the classification manual

(Main et al., 2002). Mothers who were generally able to discuss their childhood

attachment experiences openly and truthfully through coherent speech, while

demonstrating that they clearly value attachment experiences, were judged secure. In

contrast, mothers were judged insecure if their speech was marked by striking

incoherence through idealization, preoccupied anger, or a lapse in monitoring or

reasoning with regard to their experiences of loss or trauma.

For the current sample, Japanese transcripts were coded by the first author, who

had attended three AAI institutes (twice as a student, and once as an assistant to the

trainer). Two-way agreement with another certified Japanese coder across 10

interviews from this sample was 90%, kappa .78,p .01, and disagreements were

discussed and resolved.

Results

Descriptive analyses

For preliminary analyses, a series of Independent-Samples T-test and Pearsons

Correlations revealed that childs gender, childs age, mothers age, and maternal

education level had no effect on attachment group differences. In contrast, childs

gender was significantly related to Furys four scales that were examined. Girls

scored significantly higher than did boys in Vitality (t 4.63, df 45, p 5 .001)

and Family pride (t 4.10, df 45, p 5 .001), whereas boys scored significantlyhigher than did girls inBizarreness(t 2.99,df 45,p 5 .01) andGlobal pathology

(t 2.69, df 45, p 5 .05). In addition, mothers age and childs age were

independently significantly correlated to Family pride (r .30, p 5 .05; r .33,

p 5 .05) respectively, although mothers age and childs age were not significantly

related. Maternal education level was not related to any variable and thus was

removed from the analyses.

The two-way, secure/insecure distribution of the current sample of 47

participants based on the family drawings was 16 secure (34%) and 31 insecure

(66%). The two-way, secure/insecure distribution of the current sample of available

42 participants based on the Reunion was 20 secure (48%) and 22 insecure (52%).

The two-way, secure/insecure distribution of the current sample of 47 based on the

AAI was 29 secure (62%) and 18 insecure (38%).

Hypotheses testing

As for the two-way secure/insecure distribution, the current sample of Japanese

children did not differ significantly from Pianta et al.s (1999) nonclinical US sample

of 200 with 75 secure (38%) and 125 insecure (62%), w2 .18, n.s. Crosstabulation

analyses were conducted to examine categorical agreement between the concurrent

measures. No match was found between family drawing categories and the sixth-year

reunion categories.Crosstabulation analyses were run to examine categorical agreement of

h i b hild d l bl



9/15

shows the secure vs. insecure two-way agreement between family drawings and the

AAI: 64%, or 30 out of 47 cases agreed, k .33, w2(1, N 47) 6.8, p 5 .01.

Expected two-way agreement by chance alone was 47%. That is, in the current

Japanese sample, children with mothers with secure states of mind produced more

secure (and less insecure) drawings than expected.

In a series of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), each of the items on the global

rating scale was entered separately as a dependent variable (DV). Family drawing 2-way (secure/insecure) and childs gender were entered as an independent variable

(IV), whereas mothers age and childs age were entered as covariates. Because Fury

et al.s global rating scales are known to be highly interrelated (Fury et al., 1997;

Madigan et al., 2003), we used the Roms (1990) procedure to control for Type I

error2. There was a significant group difference on Vitality, Family pride, Bizarreness,

andGlobal pathology, after controlling for Type I error. Securefamily drawings were

rated significantly higher in VitalityandFamily pride than insecurefamily drawings

(F 13.21, df 1, p .001; F 11.43, df 1, p .002, respectively). Secure

family drawings were rated significantly lower in Bizarreness and Global pathology

than insecure family drawings (F 19.01, df 1, p .000; F 12.82, df 1,

p .001, respectively). Figure 1 presents a simple mean scores comparison of these

four scales between the secure group and the insecure group. No significant main

effect was found, taking childs gender into account, controlling for mothers age and

childs age, for Reunion 2-way, nor AAI 2-way.

Discussion

This study explored whether childrens family drawings could be reliably applied as a

measure from which to estimate attachment security in another culture. Specifically,

we examined whether Kaplan and Mains (1986) Family Drawing system, developed

in the US over 20 years ago, could be applicable to todays Japanese sample. It isalso to be noted that this is not only the first family drawing study that applied the

l i i b l h l d d i hi h hild d

Table 2. The non-forced secure/insecure two-way attachment classification agreementbetween children assessed on the family drawings and mothers assessed on the AAI.

AAI

Family Drawing Secure Insecure Total

SecureCount 14 2 16(Expected) (10) (6)% of total 30% 4% 34%

InsecureCount 15 16 31(Expected) (19) (12)% of total 32% 34% 66%

TotalCount 29 18 47% of total 62% 38% 100%

Note: k .33, w 2(1, N 47) 6.8, p 5 .01.



10/15

their families while their mothers were undergoing the AAI, in the exact same way

Berkeley children participated in the family drawing task (Main et al., 1985). Results

showed that drawings produced by Japanese children were distinguishable by

features that are characteristics of a broad secure/insecure distinction. When the

secure/insecure distribution was compared with one comparable (nonclinical) US

study that employed the Kaplan-Main system (Pianta et al., 1999), the distributions

did not significantly differ, indicating that this system appears to be applicable across

cultures and times, supporting our first hypothesis. However, when we examined

categorical secure/insecure agreements with concurrent attachment measures, the

findings were mixed. Maternal AAI secure/insecure status did predict secure/insecure

distinction identified in family drawings, indicating the AAIs robust predictability of

the offsprings attachment security even in the early middle childhood reported

elsewhere (e.g., Behrens et al., 2007), thus supporting the third hypothesis. No match

was found, however, between the reunion data and the family drawings, thus the

second hypothesis was not supported. Finally, Fury et al.s (1997) scales did produce

meaningful results, distinguishing between secure/insecure groups of the drawingsbut not the reunion or the AAI data, partly supporting our final hypothesis. Further,

rather unexpectedly, we found gender differences applying these scales to Japanese

drawings for the first time.

As a measurement of attachment, it is premature to claim that the Kaplan-Main

Family Drawing system is validated based on the current findings. Although

Japanese mothers AAI did predict secure/insecure quality judged on their childrens

family drawings, much stronger concordance was found in the same sample between

the AAI and the Main-Cassidy sixth-year system even at the subclass level (Behrens

et al., 2007) but not between the reunion data and the drawings. One interpretation

of such a discrepancy is that six-year-olds may still struggle to maintain consistentstrategies in two different modalities of attachment measures (behavioral and

representational). Nevertheless, evidence of the intergenerational transmission of

attachment found between the AAI and a seemingly simple drawing of a family is

still remarkable. Here it might be intriguing to draw parallels between the Kaplan-

Main system and the AAI classification system (Main et al., 2002) to define, for

example, secure. In general secure-autonomous speakers, during the AAI, can

describe their childhood relationships with their parents openly, thoughtfully, in a

balanced way, while giving clear indications of valuing attachment relationships and

experiences. Similarly, secure drawings often show open-arms that indicate

welcoming of family members, not unrealistic or identical figures, the position of

each figure is natural or balanced, and presents an overall impression of the family as

genuine and essentially calm and content with firm footing or centered on the

drawing paper. However, also puzzling is that in both nonclinical samples that used

the Kaplan-Main system (e.g. Pianta et al., 1999), insecure family drawings

overrepresented the samples. It is possible that the Kaplan-Main Family Drawing

system simply needs to be updated or revised to perhaps include more markers or

redefine some descriptors.

Fury et al.s (1997) global rating scores examining childrens family drawings

have been used more widely in a number of recent studies (e.g., Clarke et al., 2002;

Fihrer & McMahon, 2009; Madigan et al., 2003), in part possibly because these

scales are much more easily accessible compared to the Kaplan-Main (1986) system.Because Fury et al.s global rating system was developed considering the markers

h l d i i i ll id ifi d hil i i i h d



11/15

patterns of specific signs, Fury et al.s systems close relations to the Kaplan-Main

system were expected, and thus found. However, Fury et al.s scales did not predict

AAI security in this study, as Fihrer and McMahon (2009) did. Furthermore, Fury

et al.s global rating scales failed to show any link to attachment security judged on

the sixth-year reunion, although previously had shown a link to the SSP (Madigan

et al., 2003). Because Fury et al. originally developed this system for eightnine-year-

olds, and both Madigan et al.s and Fihrer and McMahons samples are average

seven-year-olds, it is possible Fury et al.s system may not effectively predict

attachment security construct of slightly younger children as in the current sample of

six-year-olds. Fihrer and McMahons mixed results that showed a link to the AAI

but not to the SSP and the current studys findings showing a link only to the

drawing data still raise a question of validity of this measure as an independent

measure of attachment at the present time.

Interestingly, in the present study, gender differences were found, using Fury

et al.s (1997) global rating scales. Scott (1981), measuring childrens intelligence with

the drawing test, found that girls consistently outperformed boys in drawing ahuman figure, especially when drawing a woman figure. Pianta et al. (1999)

previously suggested possible gender differences in drawings which Fihrer and

McMahon (2009) did not find in their study, employing the Fury et al. system. In the

current sample, girls scored higher than boys in scales that are indicative of

attachment security (Vitalityand Family pride) and scored lower than boys in scales

that are indicative of attachment insecurity (BizarrenessandGlobal pathology). What

is most intriguing in the current findings is that despite notable gender differences

found in Fury et al.s scales, gender was not related to attachment security in any

other measures that were applied to this sample. This could indicate that some

technical aspects of drawing a family such as actual drawing skills, especially of ahuman figure as Scott claimed, can influence rating scores of certain scales,

developed by Fury et al. Perhaps Japanese girls are more precocious and mature in

their drawing skills, compared to boys of the same age group. Or girls in Japan are

more encouraged to draw as a pastime (thus more experienced) whereas boys are

more encouraged to be physically active. Fury et al.s scales may be useful in

uniquely capturing differences in such socialization practices.

Previously, some cultural differences in childrens drawings were found when

Japanese seveneight-year-olds drawings of a person were compared with those of

their American counterparts (La Voy, Pedersen, Reitz, Brauch, Luxenberg, &

Nofsinger, 2001). The differences that La Voy et al. (2001) noted, such as fewer

smiles and more detailed attentions to hairstyles or fingernails in Japanese childrens

drawings than American childrens, however, were not found in the current Japanese

sample. Instead, what appeared to be unusual to family drawings, not seen in other

American or European samples to date (M. Main, personal communication, May

11, 2009) were (1) portraits of only head(s), as stated above, and (2) a number of

children did not include any person figure in their family drawings. At the moment, it

is not entirely clear if such features can be explained by culture specific phenomena.

Note it is possible that children of this age were learning to draw portraits (of

heads) in their schools, or that more Japanese children than those in other countries

are unwilling to undertake tasks where they are uncertain of their skills, perhaps to

avoid feeling embarrassed.A number of limitations in the current study must be reported. First, the sample

i i ll d hi d did i l d i ll i f



12/15

psychometric properties such as intelligence or general drawing ability, which can

possibly affect the quality of drawings. Third, warm-up drawings that children

drew prior to being asked to draw family were not examined. Such information can

be meaningful, particularly when drastic changes in the quality of drawings were

detected.

In conclusion, examining childrens family drawings as a measure of attachment

still requires caution so as not to rely on it as a sole measure of attachment, in line

with Mains cautions that childrens drawings should be regarded only as correlates

of early attachment (1995, p. 428). However, the flexibility of this measure being

able to accompany practically any other validated attachment measures is the

strength that should be appealing to investigators with a wide range of interests. In

addition to exploring a link to gold standard measures (the SSP and the AAI), other

concurrent representational measures for middle childhood as in, for example, the

story stem measure (e.g., Gloger-Tippelt, Gomille, Koenig, & Vetter, 2002) or the

Separation Anxiety Test (SAT; e.g., Kaplan, 1987) may produce associations that

have not been sought out before to our knowledge. Exploring a link betweenchildrens narratives regarding their attachment figures and their family drawings

may be an exciting endeavor to uncover childrens inner world multi-dimensionally.

When administering a family drawing measure, simultaneous applications of both

the Kaplan-Main system as a categorical measure and Fury et al.s system as a

continuous scales measure, but by different coders, may demand more thorough

examinations of childrens drawings in a more comprehensive manner. Fury et al.s

scales yielded intriguing gender differences, which were not captured in the Kaplan-

Main system. Yet, only the secure/insecure distinction based on the Kaplan-Main

system was found to be related to the AAI security. It is clear that more work is

needed to articulate or enhance the Kaplan-Main system to identify more markers orredefine them, and perhaps explore more precise links to Fury et al.s system. This is

only the first study of Japanese family drawings, and yet presented forms of drawings

that were not observed before, as noted earlier. It is possible then, cultural

differences in attachment representations may be distinctively captured in this

drawing method. We hope that this study may encourage cross-cultural attachment

researchers to examine how children from different cultures may depict their

representations of families in drawings either as a follow-up in longitudinal study or

as correlates to the concurrent measure.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the children and their mothers who participated in the study. We also thankSherri Haertling who coded family drawings of the entire sample based on Fury et al.s globalrating scales.

Notes

1. To maintain clarity and focus of this study, we present only two-way analyses becauseneither three-way nor four-way analyses were significant for any sets of analyses.

2. Based on their review, Olejnik, Li, Supattathum, and Huberty (1997) conclude that

most of the modified Bonferroni procedures have clear advantages over the traditionalBonferroni procedure, but differences are small in the amount of power ofcontrol of Type I error. Their results suggest that Roms (1990) procedure has the



13/15

References

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: Apsychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2009). The first 10,000 AdultAttachment Interviews: Distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical and

non-clinical groups. Attachment & Human Development, 11, 223263.Behrens, K.Y., Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2007). Mothers attachment status as determined by

the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds reunion responses: A studyconducted in Japan. Developmental Psychology, 43, 15531567.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.(Original work published 1969)

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.H. (1970). Kinetic Family Drawings (KFD): An introduction to

understanding children through kinetic drawings. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.Clarke, L., Ungerer, J., Chahoud, K., Johnson, S., & Stiefel, I. (2002). Attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder is associated with attachment insecurity. Clinical Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 7, 179198.

Fihrer, I., & McMahon, C. (2009). Maternal state of mind regarding attachment, maternaldepression and childrens family drawings in the early school years. Attachment & HumanDevelopment, 11, 537556.

Fury, G.S., Carlson, E.A., & Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Childrens representations of attachmentrelationships in family drawings. Child Development, 68, 11541164.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublishedprotocols, University of California, Berkeley.

Glazer, H.R. (1998). Expressions of childrens grief: A qualitative study. International Journalof Play Therapy, 2, 5165.

Gloger-Tippelt, G., Gomille, B., Koenig, L., & Vetter, J. (2002). Attachment representationsin 6-year-olds: Related longitudinally to the quality of attachment in infancy and mothersattachment representations.Attachment & Human Development, 4, 318339.

Goodenough, F.L. (1926).Measurement of intelligence by drawings. New York, NY: HarcourtBrace.

Goodnow, J.J. (1977). Childrens drawings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Hammer, E.F. (1981). Projective drawings. In A.I.Rabin (Ed.), Assessment with projective

techniques: A concise introduction (pp. 151185). New York, NY: Springer.Kaplan, N. (1987). Individual differences in six-year-olds thoughts about separation: Predicted

from attachment to mother at age one. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley.

Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1986). Instructions for the classification of childrens family drawingsin terms of representation of attachment. Unpublished manuscript, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Kazui, M., Endo, T., Tanaka, A., & Sakagami, H. (2000). Intergenerational transmission ofattachment: Japanese motherchild dyads. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology,

48, 323332.Koppitz, E.M. (1968).Psychological evaluation of childrens human figure drawing. New York,

NY: Grune & Stratton.La Voy, S.K., Pedersen, W.C., Reitz, J.M., Brauch, A.A., Luxenberg, T.M., & Nofsinger,

C.C. (2001). Childrens drawings: A cross-cultural analysis from Japan and the UnitedStates. School Psychology International, 22, 5363.

Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W.L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leon, J., & Rudy, D. (2005). Family processes and childrens representations ofparentification. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5, 111142.

Madigan, S., Ladd, M., & Goldberg, S. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words:Childrens representations of family as indicators of early attachment. Attachment &

Human Development, 5, 1937.Main, M. (1995). Recent studies in attachment: Overview, with selected implications forclinical work. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr (Eds.),Attachment theory: Social,



14/15

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6:Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period.Developmental Psychology, 24, 415426.

Main, M., Goldwyn, R., & Hesse, E. (2002).Adult attachment scoring and classification system.Unpublished manuscripts, University of California, Berkeley.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: Amove to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points ofattachment: Theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, 50(12, Serial No. 209), 66104.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized/disorientedattachment pattern: Procedures, findings and implications for the classifications ofbehavior. In T.B.Brazelton & M. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy.Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press.

Olejnik, S., Li, J., Supattathum, S., & Huberty, C.J. (1997). Multiple testing and statisticalpower with modified Bonferroni procedures. Journal of Educational and BehavioralStatistics, 22, 389406.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969).The psychology of the child. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Pianta, R.C., Longmaid, K., & Ferguson, J.E. (1999). Attachment-based classifications of

childrens family drawings: Psychometric properties and relationships with childrensadjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 244255.

Rom, D.M. (1990). A sequentially rejective test procedure based on a modified Bonferroniinequality.Biometrika, 77, 663665.

Scott, L.H. (1981). Measuring intelligence with the Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test.Psychological Bulletin, 89, 483505.

Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The measurement of attachment security in infancy andchildhood. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,and clinical applications (pp. 287316). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment. InJ. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinicalapplication (2nd ed., pp. 880905). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Waters, E., & Deane, K.E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachmentrelationships: Q-sort methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and earlychildhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment: Theory andresearch. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,50(12, Serial No.209), 4165.



15/15

Copyright of Attachment & Human Development is the property of Routledge and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

japán gyerekek családrajzai És kötődése

Documents